https://www.facebook.com/groups/422236254453680/permalink/2104250449585577/?comment_id=2109975492346406&reply_comment_id=2110763458934276¬if_id=1536745073436758¬if_t=group_comment_mention
A THEOCRACY RUN BY ATHEISTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE THE PATRIARCHY
Secular Koranism is really sharia interpreted by me. It is different to their Islam because it is envisaged that non-Muslims can interpret and apply the principles of Secular Koranism. It is possible in theory to have an entire nation run on the principles of Secular Koranism whose citizens are all atheists without a single Muslim.
It would be a run as a one party theocracy and be only mildly authoritarian.
Freedom of belief and speech would be guaranteed by 2:256 of the Koran. quran.com/2/256
Citizens would be given the constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate income tax of 20%. The low waged would be relieved of the burden of paying taxes and also that of voting.
Corporal and capital punishment as well as slavery would be reintroduced and brothels legalised. It is intended that slavery be regarded as an alternative form of welfare for slaves who are still capable of being economically useful since the idea is that hirers of slaves would be housing and feeding them.
Slavery would be humane and state-run. Property of the slave would remain with the state and Slave Visitors will be appointed to see that slaves are working properly and the hirer of the slave is not damaging state property.
Can't say fairer than that, can you?
Detractor:
It would never work.
CK:
Why wouldn't restoring the patriarchy work?
Detractor:
I never said restoring the patriarchy wouldn't work. I don't believe this specific example and flavour of patriarchy is inherently stable.
CK:
Are you Christian?
Detractor:
I'm not against your overall approach. I think that there are very specific sociological and cultural reasons this would not work with western nations. I think with modifications it could have a chance, but so many stars need to align that it's unlikely. I'm not Christian, buy was born into that sort of family.
CK:
Do you believe in God?
Detractor:
Not only do I not, in my personal understanding of morality, I consider those kinds of beliefs inherently evil in nature.
My concern is that if you want a traditional system of moral and cultural beliefs, they need to be compatible with the culture and traditions and history of the people who assume that set of beliefs.
Koranism and it's symbology and history will fit into western cultures like a square peg into a round hole. As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-starter at the gut level of the individual.
CK:
You seem to think that Secular Koranism is something about converting people to Islam. It is not a belief system but a legal system. There will be no Mosque of Secular Koranism.
Why do you think obeying the laws of God is inherently evil?
Can you think of a law of God that is inherently evil?
Detractor:
Claire, no. I know exactly the secular nature of what you are intending to do, and I don't disagree about why you are wanting to do it. I'm saying that doesn't matter that you're not trying to convert people to another religion. This is about incompatible culture.
CK:
What is your culture?
Detractor:
I'm Ukrainian-Canadian.
CK:
Are you saying that the culture that rejects Secular Koranism rejects it because it is a slut culture of fornication. Secular Koranism is mainly about shaming sluts with
quran.com/24/2
Detractor:
No not at all. I'm not criticizing the merits of the philosophy you have put together. That's not it at all. In fact, for the sake of this discussion, I don't mind assuming that you're absolutely correct, and that secular koranism is a fully functional belief system that has no serious flaws or inconsistencies. It STILL won't work.
CK:
Are you saying it won't work because there are no takers?
Detractor:
Yes, and here's why. Your philosophy is not a disembodied set of ideas. I mean, there is a good set of ideas in there, but it's a lot more than that.
Mixed in, there is a big mess of cultural concepts specific to the culture of it's origin. A mythology. The name "koranism" is very evocative of a very specific history and culture. It doesn't fit hand in glove with the established millenia old cultures and oral history of the nations you propose to merge it with.
What I'm saying is, secular koranism may work best only in arabic cultures or cultures with a long history of Islam. For far Eastern cultures, a form of... say... secular Buddhism would probably be much more natural for people to accept. In the west, naturally, secular Christianity, though I think other non-religious sources of moral framework are also possible, so long as they tap into the current and historical zeitgeist.
Above all you are advocating patriarchy. Patriarchy is intensly TRADITIONAL. Traditions matter extremely. This means history matters. This means culture matters. The western culture is descended from the Greeks, so secular Hellenism might would be much more readily acceptable to westerners than Koranism.
Do you see what I'm getting at? There's much more than a set of rules at play here.
CK:
Westerners think they are too cool for rules.
Detractor:
There are only a few limited ways that foreign belief systems can get shoehorned into a nation. First of all, there is brute force of invasion, subjugation, opporesion, and ultimate indoctrination of new generations. Influential as you are, I suspect this strategy of spreading your ideas is outside of your means.
A second way is seduction. The receiving nation has to crave that other culture. A very good example of this is the westernization of pre and post war Japan. They fell in love with the west, and in a short time, transformed their nation by themselves.
"Westerners think they are too cool for rules." That in itself is a rule that westerners follow. Of course, it can be exploited as can anything, if you do it right.
CK:
It would require a revolution to overthrow the matriarchy. Every revolution needs a big idea. Secular Koranism is quite a big idea.
The only men who would be interested in my idea are honourable rational marriageable men who care about the future of their nation. Most are degenerates, sodomites and nihilists with no intention or prospect of becoming a father of legitimate children.
The revolution would only happen if there is someone already in a senior position of power with the charisma and tenacity to do it.
Detractor:
Personally, I can't see secular koranism being forced or charmed into the hearts of westerners. What needs to be done is to take the set of ideas you want to promote, and cloak them in as many tropes, stereotypes, legends, fairy tales, conventions, prejudices, ways of doing things, etc. that the culture already has.
Traditionalism and patriarchy is all about familiarity. Family. It needs to be intimate. To an American, it needs to be like the smell of grandma's apple pie. Dig me?
I'm not saying you need to change your basic ideas and functions of the patriarchy you want to engineer. I'm saying all the symbology associated with it needs to fit, or the culture will reject it. Traditionalism is like an immune system. It retains rigid structure of society over a very long period of time by preferring the old and rejecting the new. You can't simultaneously advocate for traditionalism but introduce foreign cultural elements. Human nature will simply not permit this.
I intend this criticism lovingly and constructively. Though I am unaware of a lot of the details of what you propose, I don't disagree with the principle of why you are arguing for this.
CK:
Secular Koranism
is like motherhood and apple pie if you agree that forbidding fornication is the only way to support marriage and family values and that this must be done.
In the UK, the most radical thing Secular Koranism would do in rearranging its religions is to disestablish the Church of England to put all denominations of Christianity on an even footing. This idea goes back to Victorian times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disestablishmentarianism
Detractor:
If you want it to ever gain traction in the USA, you need to ban the usage of the word "Koran". Also, remove every single reference that gives away the origin of your idea set. When you're talking about forbidding fornication, replace references to the Koran with something George Washington said, etc.
CK:
The whole point of Secular Koranism is that it would allow each country that adopts it to keep the best of its traditions that made it great while surgically removing any harmful encrustations.
I have joked that I would call it Secular Khawranism!
The White House has its own copy of the Koran and it is said Jefferson had read the Koran and owned his own copy before drafting what turned out to be the First Amendment.
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-first-amendment-was-derived-from.html
Detractor:
I know what your point is. I'm pointing out that the execution of it so far triggers every single social immune response imaginable. You're setting up the idea set for instant rejection. The things that will get your ideas rejected aren't the actual ideas. It's all the cultural baggage that comes with the ideas.
At some point you have to decide if it's the actual ideas and system of rules you are pushing, or that specific culture as well.
So far you're pushing a lot more than secular koranism and I don't think you quite realize it.
CK:
Of course I'm not pushing for the culture. The new culture can form itself around the new rules.
Detractor:
Unfortunately, the culture is stuck to Secular Koranism like glue in the way you are presenting it. It's going to take a massive re-work distill the ideas out of the culture it is dissolved in.
CK:
While I am aware that Westerners would regard having to adopt the Koran as a humiliation, but it could be sold to them as the idea of snatching the Koran out of the hands of the brown man and interpreting it better.
Detractor:
It could be, but it won't. It's not a matter of humiliation or victory. There is much more basic and powerful human nature at play here. Same and other. You won't win this.
Not without making it unrecognizable to the Koran, but still maintaining general principles and rules.
CK:
Obviously, only an ambitious man with the necessary qualities would be able to pull it off. Once you control the media, anything is possible.
Detractor:
To a point. History is also full of revolutions by populations pushed too far, too hard. I'm a fan of disruptive change by virtue. If your idea doesn't automatically take over simply by existing, then it's an unworthy idea. Revolutions are only needed for forcing a set of substandard ideas onto an unwilling status quo.
We never needed to force anyone to own a smartphone. Almost everyone has one because it's the most rational thing to do in the current set of life's options. If you truly have a worthy idea, it will gain a life of it's own in no time.
CK:
Most Western men are spineless degenerates anyway, especially if they are in a senior position in politics.
I don't really expect my idea to be adopted in my lifetime, but it is easy to understand if you have read the Koran and are legally trained.
I don't expect a nation whose opium is fornication to look upon the prospect of giving it up without a great show of reluctance.
Detractor:
I'm not calling your idea bad... Just pointing to the fact that there are serious drawbacks. Fortunately for you, none of them are connected to the actual ideas and rules you wish to implement.
The flaws are in presentation.
CK:
I know it works in theory. Obviously I cannot show it would work in practice. As for the presentation, I am not going to pander to Western chauvinism when it is so clear the Western way is about to fail.
Christianity and liberal democracy are about to fail.
Using rotten wood to build a new house is not my idea of constructive construction.
It is not hard at all to show how theologically crude Christianity is.
Detractor:
The dowside is that re-working the concept so that it's seen by it's host population as "same" rather than "other" is a monumental task of meshing a set of rules with an existing mythology, history, culture, conventions, and modifying existing framework of rules and interdependencies. It's not something that replaces what came before overnight, it will have to be a process, and be done as carefully as replacing a jet engine while the airplane is still in flight. If you roll up your sleeves and do achieve this, it will certainly be a philosophical masterwork noteworthy for the ages.
CK:
There are three versions of God's laws in the Torah, New Testament and the Koran.
Judaism is for Jews only, and Christianity is idolatry.
Buddhism and Hinduism are alien to Western traditions.
There is only one religion left.
Detractor:
Islam is rather crude as well, it's based on a pedophile warlord spreading his ideas by the sword. Don't kid yourself. A set of laws may be good, but the theology is absolute poison in all the camps.
(With the possible exception of Buddha. He wasn't such a bad guy.)
CK:
It is laughable how Western imperialists with their world empires find it shocking that anyone else of another race should presume to spread their ideas too.
Whether you like it or not, Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths. Therefore it cannot be denied that the Koran is another version of the Abrahamic God's laws.
You have read neither the Bible nor the Koran, have you?
Muslims don't believe that Muhammad wrote the Koran, by the way.
No Buddhist can ever remember what the principles of Buddhism are, let alone apply them.
Detractor:
I'm very well educated, if you haven't noticed. I'm well aware that what Muslims believe and don't believe.
The core of Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, and is exceedingly simple.
CK:
I can tell an Islamophobe when I am talking to one, though you managed to hide it well until just now.
Buddhism is an impractical and vague religion that creates a parasitic priesthood.
Detractor:
HAHA Didn't I tell you from the beginning, I hate ALL religous belief. I spare none. Not even Buddhism.
Buddhism as a philosophy, not bad. Buddhism as a religion, as evil as all the others.
CK:
You may have noticed that the Chinese governing classes thought Buddhism was OK for the peasants but not themselves.
Yeah, like the average peasant is going to be applying philosophy.
Detractor:
So what is the basic tenent of Buddhist philosophy? It's extremely simple and can even be taught to a young child.
CK:
You tell me.
Detractor:
Step 1: Imagine the perfect human being as best you can. Step 2: Apply that knowledge to your own life. That's it. That's Buddhism.
CK:
You don't say.
Detractor:
I have my suspicions that you are not exactly who or what you claim to be, and I never believed your stated goals, but it was an entertaining conversation.
CK:
I had thought you were going to mention the four noble truths or the eightfold path.
Detractor:
Nope, that's all extraneous bullshit. I read it dozens of times in my study of religions, and it was dumb enough that it never stuck in my head either.
CK:
It's bullshit all right.
Detractor:
So let's get to the heart of the matter. The "secular" portion of your idea of Koranism that you wish to be spread is likely best described as "Taqiyya". I'm almost certain of it now.
CK:
Secular Koranism is called secular because you don't have to be Muslim to apply and interpret it, as long as you are legally qualified and have passed an exam in Koranic Knowledge.
Therefore in theory you can have an entire nation of atheists governed by the principles of Secular Koranism who wish their moral system to be patriarchal and their legal system to support marriage and family values.
Detractor:
Aha. Suspicions confirmed. Taqiyya.
CK:
You think I am Muslim?
Detractor:
It's obvious.
CK:
I don't see how.
Detractor:
You give yourself away by contrasting your love and deep knowledge of Islamic ideas with both ignorance and hatred of other religions, even the secular parts that are in theory at least equally good and patriarchal as the secular koranistic parts.
CK:
Religions that are obviously stupid should be despised and scorned.
What secular parts of what are you referring to?
Detractor:
Buddhism is quite patriarchal in nature, and it's been stably so much longer than all the other religions. If you were wanting for a strong stable patriarchy, you would choose secular Buddhism because it has the longest track record.
CK:
All the five world religions are patriarchal because all five world religions in theory support marriage and family values.
Detractor:
Here's what you fail to understand. Unlike all the other religions, Buddhism has always been primarily secular. This is why Buddhists take no offence when you tell them that Buddha is just a made up thing. Buddhists just shrug their shoulders and carry on.
CK:
Buddhism has not distinguished itself in history as far as I can tell.
Detractor:
You don't even know enough about it to criticize it so harshly. Believe me, I have some extremely harsh criticisms of religious Buddhism, because they've done great evil, but you haven't even scratched the surface of it enough to to comprehend what those issues are. You just call it "stupid" because that's how deeply you understand it.
CK:
What are your "extremely harsh criticisms of religious Buddhism"?
Detractor:
A history almost as long as Christianity and Islam combined, spanning the two most populated places on the planet, and you say it hasn't distinguished itself historically? How positively Islamic of you.
CK:
And what has it achieved?
Detractor:
I'm absolutely entertained and tickled pink by your ignorance.
I contrast that with your encyclopedic knowledge of the Koran, and you're so painfully transparent.
CK:
I patiently await enlightenment from you.
Detractor:
Oh no you aren't. You're glad to hear criticism of infidels, the rest you don't care about.
CK:
So what are your criticisms of Buddhism?
Detractor:
Keep drooling, sir.
CK:
Why won't you tell me?
Detractor:
That's right. You're a man. Not many Muslim women who want to spread the patriarchy have a sailor's mouth like you do, but the men certainly do.
CK:
What could Buddhism have done wrong in its long insignificant history?
Detractor:
I won't tell you because I'm here to expose you, so I'm done with you. If you're so curious, you can do your own research into infidel religions.
Another case in point... you're far too passionate about theology to be advocating something secular.
CK:
Is the prohibition against murder and theft secular or divine? Who cares?
Detractor:
I know you do.
CK:
I am saying it doesn't matter whether God says drive on the right or the left as long as the law is enforced and people obey it.
Detractor:
You're just another filthy Islamic rat, trying to spread your religion by any means possible.
And don't feel special, I'd call you a rat spreading disease no matter what religion you push.
CK:
We currently live in a liberal democracy with many laws that we disagree with and disapprove of.
In a theocracy we would continue to live under laws we disagree with. but the difference is that it would be supporting marriage and family values ie patriarchy.
Detractor:
Yeah keep flailing. I've got your number.
I have far too many data points from your thinking process and they all line up perfectly.
CK:
You've stopped making sense. What a shame.
What data points?
Detractor:
I know I have stopped making sense to you. I'm not concerned. This is for others. I have no doubt anyone else reading this will understand exactly who you are, Mr. Khaw.
CK:
Mr Khaw is my papa!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSgXrtwTjxQ may be of interest if you want to hear a Jew challenging me about Secular Koranism.
